Three Strike Laws

1735 Words4 Pages

Are mandatory minimums and three-strike laws the solution to America's crime problem? Many, including myself, believe so, but only for violent crimes such as murder, rape, or arson. Some argue that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are deserving of the 25-to-life sentence that can be imposed under mandatory minimums for three-strike laws. A three-strike law mandates a 25-year to life sentence for three violations and convictions of a law. While mandatory minimums are not always tied to three-strike laws, they require a predetermined amount of time in prison for specific offenses, and the only way to reduce the sentence is by assisting the authorities in further convictions of others. In California, a man was sentenced under the three-strike laws for theft because he had two prior convictions for robbery and attempted robbery. Therefore, the slice of pizza he stole got him 25 years to life in prison (Lungren Trumpets ‘Three Strikes’ Law). Many argue that these laws are unfair and used to profile African Americans and inner-city minorities, primarily due to the sentencing difference in rock and powder cocaine. There is a difference in the two forms and how they are sold. Cocaine can be bought and sold as powder or rocks, also known as crack or crack cocaine. The effects of each are essentially the same. People will get the same effects with powder as with crack. The sentencing disparity between the two forms of cocaine is unjust and has a disproportionate impact on African Americans and other minorities. The mandatory minimums and three-strike laws have been criticized for their impact on women, who often receive harsher sentences than men for similar crimes. While incarceration may aid in the fight against drugs, it is not a long-term solution. Instead, we need to address the root causes of crime and provide education, job training, and other resources to help individuals avoid criminal behavior.

Open Document